Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enonic (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enonic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still nothing actually suggesting convincing substance as the listed sources are not convincing and my searches including at Norwegian newspapers are not finding better; the NorwegianWiki offers nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial on an unremarkable products. Coverage insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Promotional content aside, the article is referenced by 3 main sources:
- digi.no - Norwegian online newspaper published by Teknisk Ukeblad Media; 4 references
- Sarpsborg Arbeiderblad - Local newspaper in Sarpsborg, Norway; 2 references
- CMSWire; 1 reference Pavlor (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: this appears to be either local or trade press coverage, which is insufficient to meet WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I notified WikiProject Norway; hopefully they will offer an opinion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I can be of help. I do know Norwegian but not tech stuff. The list in the "Users" section is of important and legit government and commercial names. Other claims sound good, too, if true. Coverage does seem slim for a company that's been around for so long and with offices in USA & UK. --Hordaland (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.